common sense is an oxymoron:Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: common sense is an oxymoron: When there is no way (at least from our current perspective) to settle the question one way or the other, how is the statement "There is NO god" based on anything other than faith?

Insert Morbo here. "Faith does not work that way!"

To put it this way, think of Harvey. What you're saying is that its a matter of faith that Elwood's a little different upstairs and that there is no Harvey the pooka. Or for a more real world and less amicable argument, try David Berkowitz. Is it a matter of faith that there was no dog telling him to kill people?

Both of these are specific examples in which all of the components are pretty well defined (although in Elwood's defense, *something* opened the door and crossed the room), and it is generally accepted that there is absolutely zero evidence that dogs are capable of ordering humans about (via telepathy, at any rate). In the case of "god," there is no single definition which everyone can agree with, so what is the basis for claiming that all possible definitions are false?

If nobody can agree on what exactly "god" is that they're talking about, isn't the whole discussion pointless?

People are just talking past each other if religious dude A is thinking of a non-corporeal prime mover of the universe, religious dude B is thinking of Isis as a representation of feminine ideals, and atheist dude C is thinking of the Old Testament Yahweh in his tabernacle.

It's as meaningful as counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Giltric:FloydA: common sense is an oxymoron: whidbey: Giltric: My antiquated world view is "mind your own business" something that atheists nor the religious have a grasp of.

Oh I have a total grasp of it. But sometimes minding one's own business allows ignorance and injustices to continue unchallenged. See=any civil rights issue of the past 100 years.

But as a free thinking man of the times you do not see the irnoy of the atheists process to convert people to atheism or the attempted conversion? You sound very religiously atheist.

Free-thinkers don't try to push the fallacy that a system based on reason and knowledge is somehow a "religion." Troll harder, dude.

Atheism isn't a religion, but it is based on faith rather than irrefutable evidence.

Prove it.

No, seriously, I want you to prove that my unwillingness to support your bald assertion is a form of "faith." Tell me, with a strait face, that my unwillingness to accept your claims requires as much "faith" as your willingness to propose them.

Theists say "there is a god." We agree that this claim requires "faith."

If someone doesn't believe in something why do they need someone who believes in something to prove to them that that something exists? If it was all about not believeing they would just go their merry way onstead of trying to force their lack of belief on others......

When people who do believe are among the majority of people who get to make laws that effect everyone else, then it does become important to prove that the god fearing way is better than legislation that has nothing to do with religious belief.

IlGreven:common sense is an oxymoron: Even a theist can agree that there is no direct evidence, which is why it's called "faith." Why shouldn't the same hold true for atheists?

Because there's nothing for most atheists to assert. True, some are adamant that there is no god. That's faith. But until there is evidence for something, anything, other than the default position, the default position is the only one that does not require faith, because the default position makes no assertions.

I have no problem with accepting the null hypothesis as a "best fit" for our current level of knowledge. For all practical purposes, I do so myself. But, as you say, some people go beyond that, and that's where skepticism becomes dogma and reason becomes faith.

common sense is an oxymoron: As for the null hypothesis, it is based upon existing evidence (or lack thereof). From a practical viewpoint, I agree that there is no reason to believe that any particular religion is true, but I am also willing to concede that we don't know everything about the universe. The null hypothesis may be the default position, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth.

It does, however, make it a position that you can take without faith.

True. But then, what is atheism? I may be splitting hairs here, but to me being "adamant that there is no god" is what separates atheism from hard agnosticism.

Bonzo_1116:common sense is an oxymoron: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: common sense is an oxymoron: When there is no way (at least from our current perspective) to settle the question one way or the other, how is the statement "There is NO god" based on anything other than faith?

Insert Morbo here. "Faith does not work that way!"

To put it this way, think of Harvey. What you're saying is that its a matter of faith that Elwood's a little different upstairs and that there is no Harvey the pooka. Or for a more real world and less amicable argument, try David Berkowitz. Is it a matter of faith that there was no dog telling him to kill people?

Both of these are specific examples in which all of the components are pretty well defined (although in Elwood's defense, *something* opened the door and crossed the room), and it is generally accepted that there is absolutely zero evidence that dogs are capable of ordering humans about (via telepathy, at any rate). In the case of "god," there is no single definition which everyone can agree with, so what is the basis for claiming that all possible definitions are false?

If nobody can agree on what exactly "god" is that they're talking about, isn't the whole discussion pointless?

People are just talking past each other if religious dude A is thinking of a non-corporeal prime mover of the universe, religious dude B is thinking of Isis as a representation of feminine ideals, and atheist dude C is thinking of the Old Testament Yahweh in his tabernacle.

It's as meaningful as counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Yep. The same is true if people can't agree on what exactly "atheism" is.

Even if the end result is just running in circles, it's better mental exercise, and certainly no more meaningless, than obsessing over Honey Boo Boo.

winterbraid:What possible errand could tear you away from this? I'm cooking Easter dinner and I brought my laptop into the kitchen just to watch this halfwit strangle his dictionary.

A half wit? It's almost like you know me!

I guess showing that stating something as fact means you are making an assertion, which means you have a belief that if you can't show evidence for, is tantamount to faith, to someone who also stated they have no faith, is....oh, never mind.

So my Dad is Atheist (my brother probably is, I'm agnostic). My family is Polish Catholic, so most/.all of our family traditions are completely intertwined with Catholic traditions.

The one day a year, as long as I've been alive, that my Dad goes to Mass is on Easter. From what I can gather... because a) it means something to my Mom, and at one point my brother and I and b) because one day a year won't kill him, especially if it's important to his family ( / just my Mom, these days).

/I'll just leave this there//Agnostic///Gonna be in church tomorrow, like I do on Ash Wednesday and... that's about it////But it still kind of matters to me, and again, my atheist for at least 3 decades that I know of Dad... even if we don't really believe in the events relayed, the message is still relevant. And the family tradition is most certainly relevant.

I'll get back to you right after I answer the door here. Looks like it's a couple of people who don't know me, but want to say they're better than I am and are more knowledgeable about the universe, even though they've never held a conversation with me before.

Lenny_da_Hog:Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: That's how you tell if someone is secure in their atheism. They go out of their way to needlessly provoke those who believe.

I'll get back to you right after I answer the door here. Looks like it's a couple of people who don't know me, but want to say they're better than I am and are more knowledgeable about the universe, even though they've never held a conversation with me before.

cameroncrazy1984:common sense is an oxymoron: any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.

It might help to try to define what it is that you don't believe in

I don't believe in things with no evidence. That doesn't require any faith whatsoever.

Oh? So how do you know that 2+2 is 4? Because your 1st grade teacher told you it was? Did you ask her to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your 1st grade teacher that 2+2 does equal 4?

How do you know that pi is not a repeating number? Because your 8th grade math teacher told you? How many digits did that math teacher go to? 5? 10? Did you require that math teacher to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your math teacher that pi is not a repeating number, and went on your merry way?

It is a tough call for Atheists as it is hard to just ignore all the asshole theists out there. On the other hand I am typically against my fellow Aetheists trolling people. Not good for us overall and trying to appear smarter than bible thumpers is like picking a fight with a two year old.

I expect this thread is full of people stating that all atheists are smug assholes for this, yet having zero problem with the 1000x more common religious dicketry we get on a daily basis.

MBrady:cameroncrazy1984: common sense is an oxymoron: any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.

It might help to try to define what it is that you don't believe in

I don't believe in things with no evidence. That doesn't require any faith whatsoever.

Oh? So how do you know that 2+2 is 4? Because your 1st grade teacher told you it was? Did you ask her to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your 1st grade teacher that 2+2 does equal 4?

How do you know that pi is not a repeating number? Because your 8th grade math teacher told you? How many digits did that math teacher go to? 5? 10? Did you require that math teacher to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your math teacher that pi is not a repeating number, and went on your merry way?

Repo Man:MBrady: cameroncrazy1984: common sense is an oxymoron: any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.

It might help to try to define what it is that you don't believe in

I don't believe in things with no evidence. That doesn't require any faith whatsoever.

Oh? So how do you know that 2+2 is 4? Because your 1st grade teacher told you it was? Did you ask her to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your 1st grade teacher that 2+2 does equal 4?

How do you know that pi is not a repeating number? Because your 8th grade math teacher told you? How many digits did that math teacher go to? 5? 10? Did you require that math teacher to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your math teacher that pi is not a repeating number, and went on your merry way?

MBrady:Repo Man: MBrady: cameroncrazy1984: common sense is an oxymoron: any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.

It might help to try to define what it is that you don't believe in

I don't believe in things with no evidence. That doesn't require any faith whatsoever.

Oh? So how do you know that 2+2 is 4? Because your 1st grade teacher told you it was? Did you ask her to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your 1st grade teacher that 2+2 does equal 4?

How do you know that pi is not a repeating number? Because your 8th grade math teacher told you? How many digits did that math teacher go to? 5? 10? Did you require that math teacher to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your math teacher that pi is not a repeating number, and went on your merry way?

Please continue giving examples of false equivalence.

Please continue ignoring your faith.

Yes, people do take things on faith that are presented by trusted individuals. The difference is that at any time you can delve into the details and find evidence that what you took on "faith" was true.

You mentioned pi right? If I wanted to validate that I need only find a physical circle and back out the math. Poof. My faith is validated.

Testability and hard evidence are what seperates religion and science.

Lenny_da_Hog:Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: That's how you tell if someone is secure in their atheism. They go out of their way to needlessly provoke those who believe.

I'll get back to you right after I answer the door here. Looks like it's a couple of people who don't know me, but want to say they're better than I am and are more knowledgeable about the universe, even though they've never held a conversation with me before.

brb.

Hey! Awesome way to help that guy's point by pointing out that the religious atheists do the same thing the religious theists do!

The difference between religion and science, you sorry excuse for an example of speciousness, is that if you fark up the rules of your religion, nothing bad is actually going to happen to you. But let's say you're an architect or a demolitions engineer: getting the science wrong may very well fark you up good and proper.

In other words, the universe does not give a shiat about your poorly constructed fairy tales.

common sense is an oxymoron:When there is no way (at least from our current perspective) to settle the question one way or the other, how is the statement "There is NO god" based on anything other than faith?